To evaluate this case, a lawyer has to know ALL the facts, (which I do not advocate posting on the internet until the case has been decided).

If the "battery" was a schoolyard scuffle, that's one thing. If it started out as a First Degree Domestic Assault, and was pled down because the victim was too terrified to testify, and the police reports indicate it was the ninth police call about a continuing situation, that's another. It's probably somewhere in between.

If the paraphernalia charge was made because the defendent was found passed out on the street and his buddies has swiped his stash, that might be different than if a spoon was found in the back seat of his car.

That's why you meet with a lawyer, to sort everything out. I'd recommend the lawyers we nomally recommend, because they have experience with these exact things.

I've never met Marc, but I'd bet Marc could give a pretty quick and accurate prediction if he is given the facts.

Yup. More generally: permit appeals are specialized area of law, and kind of strange. They are, technically, a civil process (which is why the sheriff is held to "clear and convincing" rather than the state to "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but they're largely handled, in practice, by criminal lawyers (either crimlaw specialists, like Marc, or general practice folks with a lot of criminal experience, like David) as for the obvious reasons (and probably some others) the crimguys' experience is useful.

What's also strange, from this amateur's POV, is that standard rules of evidence appear to be thrown out the window, and that's not a good thing.

Yup. I'd be very interested to know what the successful appeal percentage is of folks who don't play along with the RCSO games -- the folks who don't, say, provide a list of "character witnesses" or take further interviews, but just get a lawyer. My guess is that well over 60% are successful.

Geesh, don't give "character witnesses", without hiring a lawyer.

That's just doing the Sheriff's investigation for him. An investigator's trick. Don't fall for that.

The Sheriff can just call these folks, who eagerly cooperate because they think they are doing a you favor, and he will then ask any question he wants, including the indentities of any other people who know you, that were not listed. Then he'll check his records on THEM, and probably call or visit them. He'll just get more dirt. (They really don't value your uncle's opinion that you"re actually turning out to be a good guy. Really.)

also, isn't it the case that if you win the appeal, the denying officer must pay the lawyer's bill?

This means you can often make arrangements for a 30 minute 'initial consultation' for $100

if you have a soild case, make an offer of pay X if successful, pay Y if unsuccessfull.

with X being standard rate and Y being something much less. If you truely have a stong case, I'd expect a lawyer to agree, knowing that they stand a 99% chance of getting their standard fee from the sherrif

Nothing in law is "99%".

Most lawyers will probably want a retainer to cover costs and some amount of attorney fees. Clients may change their mind, die or move out of state, or become ineligable before the case is decided and fees are awarded. The amount of the fee recovery is sort of up to the "discretion" of the Judge. Some Judges are likely to cut the fee if they see fit. Some judges will make you have to appeal the simplist things.

With the cutbacks in Court financing, a case like this may take a long time to be heard. (Regardless of the "60 day" rule. They can always call the case and continue it or simply not put it on the calander.) It's my understanding that some the the rural judges are threatening to refuse to put minor traffic or bad check charges on the calander until they can get more staff.

The lawyer in the meantime has to pay his bills regardless of changes in circumstances or court delays.

shouldnt have been massing with drugs in the first place

Sure. And since I'm sure you've never done anything you shouldn't have, you're in a different category. Right?

Makes me think of his avatar ... I sure hope that's a remote camera there and no one is one day saying "Remember Rule 2!"

The Angela Aho incident Discussed in Joel's carry class. Tragic.

The part that interested me in the original post wasn't the weed pipe possession, but the battery conviction for which the OP didn't provide further detail.

we don't have "battery" in MN do we?

That was my immediate thought when joel mentioned

A new member already making waves.. I see lots of quality posts coming from this guy

In today world, the more money and political influence the better the justice. Leaned that growing up in Chicago.

Go easy, All I saw was an opinion.

I would be very surprised if the Sherriff backs off when there is a battery conviction on the table... By all means give it a try but don't be surprised if the apeal is also denied...If you look at the list of things that make you ineligible you'll see where the Sherriff based his decision